I happened upon this article during a google search and I had to comment, even if it is two years too late. I am impressed to read such a clear and rational argument at a time when we seem to be hearing so much sensational hyperbole, so many arguments which are never thought out logically in the first place, and than even less logically defended. You've presented intelligent and insightful arguments which cannot be completely rejected by any rational person, but I can not agree with your conclusions.
You would use one flaw in our collective legal systems, and it is a flaw, to justify another. It is true that we imprison innocent people temporarily, strip them of their rights and property, and while I would never argue that this is an unacceptable state of affairs which must be abolished, I would hope that some day, even if it should not happen until well after my lifetime, we would find a better way. In recent years I have heard of days long detention and questioning of people who are never charged with any crime, of terrorism suspects being denied access to evidence which is to be used against them, presented to judges in secret without the presence of defence counsel. It was not so long ago that I thought of these things as impossible in any developed nation, now I skim through articles about terrible injustices because they have become so commonplace. If such unfortunate necessities as the ones you mention above should become the rational for these policies, than we have all taken a step backwards. Please do not think I am judging you to be unjust. I understand your reasoning and the logic of your ideas, but I know that this is wrong.
I know a little of such injustices from the history of my own country. During World War II our government forcibly moved inland or interred thousands of our own citizens because they came from Japan and were thought to be untrustworthy. This was a decision that was well supported by the people and one of the darkest chapters in our history. Mr. Krauthammer, from whose articles you quote, would seem to pass off a similar internment in American history as a mildly objectionable fluctuation in between two extremes of oppression and absolute freedom, barely warranting mention. I had thought such things were well behind us, but if an intelligent, level headed person like you will quote an support an argument like Mr. Krauthammer's than I find I have to rethink just how bad things have really gotten.
I have no doubt all this will be over within my lifetime, that I will be able to look back at all this as what it really is, foolishness, temporary insanity, but I'd like the wait to be as short as possible. I close with a thought: In the end terrorists can kill us, perhaps will again, but they can't take away our freedoms. We have to do that for them.
I only stumbled across this page looking for the Star Trek: The Next Generation quote so I do not wish to argue the merits of the blog, either way (especially seeing as it would be 3 years too late).
I do however wish to correct your use of the quote. While the quote is accurate, it has been cut short and taken in isolation to change its meaning, and demonize the original speaker.
It should read --"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. Those words where uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as both wisdom and warning".
The quote in its entirety recognizes both the benefits and dangers to a society of taking away a persons freedom and I do not believe that it is in conflict with your points.
You have deliberately misrepresented the statement as a means to manipulate others with "simplistic thinking" to your own ends.
As you would seem to be familiar with quotes from Star Trek: The Next Generation I hope you will appreciate a closing quote of Captain Picard
--"It is a lie. Lies must be challenged."
Posted by Cloud at June 30, 2008 09:54 AMThe meaning has not been changed. The extra bit that you contributed, "Those words where uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as both wisdom and warning," is irrelevant and contributes nothing.
Your post serves only to demonstrate that the portion that I did include has not been taken out of context and that the point I made is entirely accurate.
Posted by Jeff at June 30, 2008 10:48 AM@Erik: You say, "while I would never argue that this is an unacceptable state of affairs which must be abolished, I would hope that some day, even if it should not happen until well after my lifetime, we would find a better way." Well put. But inherent in that statement is an acceptance of the current necessity of accepting and enduring these short term encroachments on our civil liberties. And that's the essential point. We may no like them, just as we may not like having to pay for, install, and use locks on our doors. But they are necessary. We cannot do without them.
Posted by Jeff at June 30, 2008 11:02 AM